Replies

First off...for the record, I don't know Mr. Cooper from Adam. And I'm reserving judgement on what happened until more facts are known...objective facts.

But from your recent posts, I have a couple questions. Not trolling or anything, just really want to know....

The article says they were playing the roll of 'rowdy teenagers'. From that you would have everyone leap to the conclusion that he knew they were cops?

Would seem that they created a scenario where they wanted him to pull a gun. Hmmm . . .

Of the versions of the story I read, was that once Mr. Cooper was in their area addressing this fuss, the sheriff's identified themselves as sheriffs, at which time (depending on which account you read or believe) Mr. Cooper either drew a weapon and fired, or ran away, was fired upon, and then returned fire. Either way, the law enforcement identified themselves prior to rounds being fired. Undercover work has long been an accepted law enforcement practice. Did I miss something from the news reports?

As I mentioned in another thread on this, I do think it seems a little fishy that the sheriffs were acting like "unruley teens" at midnight. On the other hand, this is supposedly someone who they had tried to serve the arrest warrant to on 3 other occasions, and he evaded or refused to surrender. That's just asking for undercover work, and trying to take the suspect unaware. What approach should have been taken to apprehend an unwilling suspect?

It seems you know little about William Cooper. You may not have agreed with him, and to some Sheeple he seemed down right radical, but he was definitely one to talk the talk and walk the walk. Some of his thoughts were a little far out, but as often as not he was right on the money.

Well, using your initial phrase, if you are out to "talk the talk and walk the walk", that implies a willingness to back it up and take the associated risks. If he was "backing this up", and came out on the short end of it, I'm not entirely sure why I should feel sorry for him. I mean, I don't want to see him killed, or sheriffs. But as I see it, right now, there are two people dead. One was law enforcement, acting on an authorized arrest warrant. The other was someone resisting this arrest.

Like I said, I never heard of Mr. Cooper before today. Therefore, I have no preconceived notions for or against him. Working solely off what has been posted here at FR, these seem to be legitimate questions.

Well, using your initial phrase, if you are out to "talk the talk and walk the walk", that implies a willingness to back it up and take the associated risks. If he was "backing this up", and came out on the short end of it, I'm not entirely sure why I should feel sorry for him.

Let me preface by saying I am not a "radical right wing Militia nut, however I have listened to and read much of what William Cooper was about and believed in over the past ten years. I did not agree with all of what he had to say and I would not call myself a Cooper fan or follower, but some of what he said had merit.

To be sure we do not, as yet, know what went on in this particular scenario, but I can tell you from what has been describe thus far this type of police action is fairly common with the "constituionalist" type of patriots (of course the term patriot means different things to different people; some think it means total obediance to Fed Gov; to others it means one who believes in the litteral interpretation of the US Consitution). At least two of these "consitutionalist" types were killed in similar fashion in Ohio over the past several years, and there are numerous examples from other states as well. The warrants typically are small time BS and the situtations are designed to provoke confrontation.

Yes...Anyone who listened to him would know that the law would certainly set William up for the kill. He talked a lot about "If they ever try to come and take my gun I will be waiting for them". My best friend listened to WC a lot and we got into some heated debates about his views. Living in the USA though he had every right to have those views and should not have been "murdered" for them.

I certainly didnt agree with everything WC had to say but I am glad he had the balls big enough to speak his mind. It is just infortunate that it made him an easy target for this type of ending. They could have gone in there and killed him without return fire and because of his beliefs the story could still be told the same way.

Anyway I know a lot of people will miss WC (especially at 10 PM M-TH) so my thoughts go out to his listeners friends and family.

Of the versions of the story I read, was that once Mr. Cooper was in their area addressing this fuss, the sheriff's identified themselves as sheriffs, at which time (depending on which account you read or believe) Mr. Cooper either drew a weapon and fired, or ran away, was fired upon, and then returned fire. Either way, the law enforcement identified themselves prior to rounds being fired. Undercover work has long been an accepted law enforcement practice. Did I miss something from the news reports?

The method used suggests that the deputies were acting like what was called in the past "juvenile delinquents", i.e., young criminals. To quiet down such a group, a rural citizen might be expected to draw a gun. Once the suspect drew a gun they were free to kill him with impuntiy. The story suggests, though, he was shot in the back attempting to flee. Normally that would be a tricky explanation for the police.

I'm like you, Justin....haven't the faintest idea who the man is. My point was to point out that just because someone yells something in a scary/frightening situation doesn't mean that it is the truth.....and I daresay when adrenaline is pumping as you see a gun pointed your way--upon realizing you've been diverted, I don't know if you would hear anything....especially when there are a zillion of them yelling at you.

If, as was commented earlier, he had said 'he wouldn't be taken alive', then his words came true today--regardless of who pulled the trigger over what ever the reason.